Catholic priests are allowed to have girlfriends? I guess as long as they remain celibate and don't get married it's all good...(:

So any religion that allows the clergy to have girlfriends and does the confession thing would work? Is Maretta married? Relevant? Is her boyfriend married? Relevant? Is her age relevant? Is his?

Maretta killed someone; just one person? Was the murder believed/known to be a murder? Was the body found? Was Maretta ever considered to be a suspect? Was there any evidence linking her to the death(s)?

Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 12:45 am: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Catholic priests are allowed to have girlfriends? I guess as long as they remain celibate and don't get married it's all good...(:The puzzle doesn't say the clergyman is allowed to have a girlfriend, just that he has one, which, if he's a priest, be presumably wouldn't be allowed to

So any religion that allows the clergy to have girlfriends see previous answer and does the confession thing yes would work? Is Maretta married? possibly Relevant? ditto Is her boyfriend married? possibly Relevant? ditto Is her age relevant? no Is his? no

Maretta killed someone; just one person? yes Was the murder believed/known to be a murder? yesWas the body found? yesWas Maretta ever considered to be a suspect? yesWas there any evidence linking her to the death(s)? yesJenburdoo (Jenburdoo) New member Username: Jenburdoo

Has the case ever gone to trial? Did the state attorney nolle pros the case? Was Maretta charged with murder by police? Was she indicted by a grand jury? Was she found guilty? Was she acquitted? Is the Constitution of the United States relevant? Would the ACLU applaud this event if it read about it in The Washington Post?

Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 8:42 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Has the case ever gone to trial? yes Did the state attorney nolle pros the case? huh?? Was Maretta charged with murder by police? yes Was she indicted by a grand jury? yes Was she found guilty? no Was she acquitted? yes Is the Constitution of the United States relevant? I think so Would the ACLU applaud this event if it read about it in The Washington Post? Well, I'm a card-carrying ACLU memner, & my answer is yope

Did the boyfriend testify? On her behalf? Against her? Was he in some other way important to the case of Defense or Prosecution?

Did Maretta get off on a technicality of any sort? Or, if she was actually found "Not Guilty," was this due to some sort of technicality or mistake on the part of the police, prosecutor, or judge that came out during the trial? Are lawyers relevant? Is Maretta's own profession relevant?

Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 2:25 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Did the boyfriend testify? noish On her behalf? yesAgainst her? no Was he in some other way important to the case of Defense or Prosecution? yes

Did Maretta get off on a technicality of any sort? noOr, if she was actually found "Not Guilty," was this due to some sort of technicality or mistake on the part of the police, prosecutor, or judge that came out during the trial? no Are lawyers relevant?no more than in any such case Is Maretta's own profession relevant? noKdoc (Kdoc) New member Username: Kdoc

Post Number: 819 Registered: 7-2001

Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 9:18 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) did the boyfriend give evidence? yesishdid he lie? yes did he fail to reveal something? yes did he provide an alibi? no was his giving evidence hindered in some way by his position as a minister? yope

is it necessary that he be a minister for the puzzle to work?see next answer could he have been something else? there are a few other possibilities

is a confession relevant? yes hers? no his? no someone else's? yesish the murder victim's? no

So, presumably he was not a very good minister, if he was willing to lie. Was the jury influenced by his testimony (assuming it was a jury trial; was it? If Maretta had waived her right to a jury, would the judge have been fooled?)

Was the appeal of the bf's testimony that because he was a man of God, obviously he couldn't be lying?

Did he conceal his relationship with Maretta?

Did the police arrest Maretta on the strength of eyewitness, forensic or circumstantial evidence, and is this relevant?

Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 1:07 am: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) So, presumably he was not a very good minister, if he was willing to lie. yes Was the jury influenced by his testimony no (assuming it was a jury trial; was it? yesIf Maretta had waived her right to a jury, would the judge have been fooled?) yes

Was the appeal of the bf's testimony that because he was a man of God, obviously he couldn't be lying? noish or yope

Did he conceal his relationship with Maretta? yes

Did the police arrest Maretta on the strength of eyewitness, forensic or circumstantial evidence, and is this relevant? could be any as long as it wasn't infallible (& what evidence is?)Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo) New member Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 571 Registered: 5-2003

Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 1:10 am: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Does this have anything to do with the practice of putting one's hand on a Bible and swearing to tell the whole truth etc? noRcs (Rcs) New member Username: Rcs

Does the minister have any job or position other than minister? Is he employed as a minister? Does he have a congregation? Relevant?

Is Maretta's job or position relevant? If so, LTPF list of industries.

Next, I think I'm missing something.

You state that the jury was NOT influenced by his testimony, but that the judge (had she waived her right to a jury) would have been. By this I meant that if the judge (and not a jury) had been making the decision to acquit or convict, he/she would have made a different decision than the jury. Did you answer this question correctly, then? If so, did the judge hear something different from the jury?

Second, you state that the jury was NOT influenced by the minister's lies. If he was on the stand, lying, and they saw through him, presumably they would have convicted Maretta, yet they did not. So:

Do you say this, then, because he was not, technically, a witness on the stand? Was he? Did he lie to the jury? To police? To someone else who testified? Was Maretta aware that he lied? Was anyone else aware that he lied? Was he alive at the time of the trial? Present? Aware of the trial or of Maretta's arrest?

How long after the murder was Maretta arrested? Immediately? A week? A month? A year? Longer? Relevant?

Hmm, is his "testimony" delivered through some medium other than a witness stand? Such as a letter? By telephone or webcam? A demonstration of some sort?

Was he breaking a religious stricture (other than 'thou shalt not lie') by testifying? For example, we know it doesn't matter if he was Catholic, but was it something AKIN to breaking the sanctity of the confessional?

Was he a dishonest man / crook, or was he lying for an objectively good reason? Or a moral one? ("If I don't lie, an innocent person will die, etc")

Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 5:37 am: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Does the minister have any job or position other than minister? irrel Is he employed as a minister? yes Does he have a congregation? yes Relevant? yesish

Is Maretta's job or position relevant? noIf so, LTPF list of industries.

Next, I think I'm missing something.

You state that the jury was NOT influenced by his testimony, but that the judge (had she waived her right to a jury) would have been. By this I meant that if the judge (and not a jury) had been making the decision to acquit or convict, he/she would have made a different decision than the jury. Did you answer this question correctly, then? yesIf so, did the judge hear something different from the jury?{yesish}

Second, you state that the jury was NOT influenced by the minister's lies. If he was on the stand, lying, and they saw through him, presumably they would have convicted Maretta, yet they did not. So:

Do you say this, then, because he was not, technically, a witness on the stand? yesWas he? no Did he lie to the jury?no To police? noTo someone else who testified? no Was Maretta aware that he lied? Was anyone else aware that he lied? yes Was he alive at the time of the trial? yes Present? yes Aware of the trial or of Maretta's arrest? yes

How long after the murder was Maretta arrested? Immediately? A week? A month? A year? Longer? Relevant? in the actual TV episode it was probably about a week, but that's not really relevant

Hmm, is his "testimony" delivered through some medium other than a witness stand? yes Such as a letter? no By telephone or webcam? noA demonstration of some sort? no

Was he breaking a religious stricture (other than 'thou shalt not lie') by testifying? yes For example, we know it doesn't matter if he was Catholic, but was it something AKIN to breaking the sanctity of the confessional? yes

Was he a dishonest man / crook, or was he lying for an objectively good reason? the former Or a moral one? no("If I don't lie, an innocent person will die, etc") Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo) New member Username: Jenburdoo

Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 7:45 am: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Did he withhold information about the actual murderer that he heard in confession when an innocent was on trial and being convicted for it? no

Are the minister's movements or travel relevant? Are his whereabouts on the day of the murder relevant? His education? Home? Relationships, other than with Maretta? Could a private investigator have ferreted out his wrongdoing? Was something other than his testimony used to cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence? Such as, "Well, her minister had an appointment with her, and he did go to visit her, so there's her alibi."

Was the minister mentioned in testimony by anyone else? Was he mentioned in court at all? Was an investigator or lawyer fooled into complacency because of his involvement? Might Maretta have been in the church during the investigation, and the police didn't want to interrupt the sermon? (This actually happened recently with a priest arrested for something -- the police came on a Sunday, but politely waited until the service was over.

Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 1:29 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Are the minister's movements or travel relevant? no Are his whereabouts on the day of the murder relevant? no His education? no Home? Relationships, other than with Maretta? no Could a private investigator have ferreted out his wrongdoing? probably Was something other than his testimony used to cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence? yesish or yope Such as, "Well, her minister had an appointment with her, and he did go to visit her, so there's her alibi." not that

Was the minister mentioned in testimony by anyone else?yope Was he mentioned in court at all? yope Was an investigator or lawyer fooled into complacency because of his involvement? yes Might Maretta have been in the church during the investigation, and the police didn't want to interrupt the sermon? no (This actually happened recently with a priest arrested for something -- the police came on a Sunday, but politely waited until the service was over. You've got to be kidding!~! Would they do that with an actor? A teacher?Bentarm (Bentarm) New member Username: Bentarm

Was the prosecutor/investigator's mistake a prejudicial mistake, along the lines of, "Ministers would NEVER do X! No need to check into that!" If so, was something concealed in a spot considered inviolable for religious reasons? From my own Jewish background, I'd suggest the ark at the front of a synagogue, in which the Torah scrolls are kept. Or perhaps concealed in something more secular belonging to the minister (say, in his office)?

Was the prosecutor or the police at fault? Both?

Had he been suspicious, would the prosecutor have called Smith to the stand? Did Smith do anything illegal in the secular sense?

The judge apparently knew something the jury didn't. Correct? Would this be because he was more familiar with Smith's faith? More or less prejudiced towards or against it? Did the defense or prosecutor speak with the judge, before his bench, discussing whether they were going to admit Smith as a witness, or admit some other type of evidence related to Smith?

Did Smith do something physical involved to the case? For example, did he hide something (like the murder weapon)? Or did his participation only extend to lying?

Posted on Friday, December 26, 2008 - 10:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Was the prosecutor/investigator's mistake a prejudicial mistake, along the lines of, "Ministers would NEVER do X! No need to check into that!" no If so, was something concealed in a spot considered inviolable for religious reasons? no From my own Jewish background, I'd suggest the ark at the front of a synagogue, in which the Torah scrolls are kept. Or perhaps concealed in something more secular belonging to the minister (say, in his office)? no

Was the prosecutor or the police at fault? Police? No. Prosecutor? That's a matter of opinion. Both?\ b{ See previous answer}

Had he been suspicious, would the prosecutor have called Smith to the stand?no Did Smith do anything illegal in the secular sense? yes

The judge apparently knew something the jury didn't. Correct? yesWould this be because he was more familiar with Smith's faith? noMore or less prejudiced towards or against it? no Did the defense or prosecutor speak with the judge, before his bench, discussing whether they were going to admit Smith as a witness, or admit some other type of evidence related to Smith? yes

Did Smith do something physical involved to the case?noish For example, did he hide something (like the murder weapon)? not that Or did his participation only extend to lying? yesish

Or was Maretta's money in the minister's account or otherwise under his control? How about something belonging to the victim, which found its way into the minister's safe-deposit box and if found would have implicated Maretta?

Hmm, did the clergyman pay for the murder weapon, or otherwise provide money to facilitate the murder or its coverup? noJenburdoo (Jenburdoo) New member Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 589 Registered: 5-2003

Posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:16 am: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Or was Maretta's money in the minister's account or otherwise under his control? no How about something belonging to the victim, which found its way into the minister's safe-deposit box and if found would have implicated Maretta? noDoctapeppa (Doctapeppa) New member Username: Doctapeppa

"The privilege consists in this, that the clerics are not under the jurisdiction of the lay courts even in merely temporal matters, which would otherwise belong to the competence of such courts."

Relevant? It goes on to add, however, that clerics may still be summoned as witnesses, if not defendants. I don't know if it also applies to other churches (wouldn't be surprised if the Anglicans/Episcopals have it, since they're direct descendants of Catholicism).

Was some religious privilege or exception invoked? By the minister himself? By the court, investigators, defense or prosecution.

"The privilege consists in this, that the clerics are not under the jurisdiction of the lay courts even in merely temporal matters, which would otherwise belong to the competence of such courts."

Relevant? It goes on to add, however, that clerics may still be summoned as witnesses, if not defendants. I don't know if it also applies to other churches (wouldn't be surprised if the Anglicans/Episcopals have it, since they're direct descendants of Catholicism).

Was some religious privilege or exception invoked? By the minister himself? By the court, investigators, defense or prosecution.

"The privilege consists in this, that the clerics are not under the jurisdiction of the lay courts even in merely temporal matters, which would otherwise belong to the competence of such courts."

Relevant? I'm not sure It goes on to add, however, that clerics may still be summoned as witnesses, if not defendants. I don't know if it also applies to other churches (wouldn't be surprised if the Anglicans/Episcopals have it, since they're direct descendants of Catholicism).

Was some religious privilege or exception invoked? yesBy the minister himself? yes By the court, investigators, defense or prosecution. no

I'm surprised nobody's asked this: Is privileged communication relevant? Did somebody communicate something to the boyfriend that he declined to reveal in court because of privilege? If so, was the communication from Maretta? somebody else?

Did the boyfriend use his position to weaken the case against Maretta? to strengthen the case against (or shift suspicion onto) some other specific person?

Did the boyfriend pretend that somebody had communicated something that he declined to reveal in court because of privilege? Did he pretend that someone else had confessed to the crime? or otherwise confided incriminating information?

Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 10:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Did the boyfriend pretend that somebody had communicated something that he declined to reveal in court because of privilege? yes Did he pretend that someone else had confessed to the crime? yes or otherwise confided incriminating information? yes*****SPOILER ********* What a clever Buzzard!! When Maretta was on trial for murder, a minister kept attending the trial, looking wooried. Finally, he told the DA that someone in his congregation had confessed to the murder, but since he heard this confession in his role as a minister, he couldn't say who or testify at all. The DA told the judge, who voided the guilty verdict. But is was a scam. The minister had made up the whole thing, to get Maretta (his secret lover) off. Why was the affair a secret? In the actual TV show, it was a gay relationship & a conservative church. I thought that would make it to easy, so let's say that either Marietta or her lover was married. A NEW PUZZLE AWAITS YOU--GUESS WHERE.